On Chinese Cultural Subjectivity Regarding Exemplary and Narrative Language: Based on Ricoeur’S Research of Narrative
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Cultural and Religious Studies, November 2019, Vol. 7, No. 11, 587-599 doi: 10.17265/2328-2177/2019.11.001 D DAVID PUBLISHING On Chinese Cultural Subjectivity Regarding Exemplary and Narrative Language: Based on Ricoeur’s Research of Narrative Wang Wen-Sheng National Chengchi University, Taipei City, Taiwan Exemplary language can, on the one hand, assist a listener to understand what a speaker intends to express, and, on the other hand, provoke a kind of practical force to the listener. Exemplary language is everywhere in our daily life, such as the bedtime stories told by a mother to her child, literary works, and judicial precedents. Many Western philosophers have expounded on this type of language. Exemplary language has become a topic for philosophical discussions. In Chinese classics, there are many expressions using exemplary language, but in different forms. Was there any philosophical reflection on these exemplary languages? The differences between the Chinese and the Western exemplary language initiate our discussion about the different subjectivity of exemplary language, or narrative subjectivity, for narrative will be discussed in this article as an extraordinary exemplary language. As a kind of exemplary language, narrative is analyzed by Ricoeur into two elements: time and meaning. Is his analysis also valid for Chinese narrative language? Can we discuss the difference of narrative subjectivity according to these two elements? The author is going to trace the origins of different subjectivity by analyzing distinct ways of creating characters/words which determinate different language forms in Chinese and the Western culture. The author finds that “linear time” (or objective time) still plays a significant role in the Western culture; by contrast, subjective time seems more dominant in Chinese culture. This also determines the narrative time for Chinese. As for the meaning, there are different purposes and ways of using narrative in Chinese culture and the Western culture, which are reflected, for example, in the different purposes of the Chinese and Western drama. This article aims to explore Chinese narrative subjectivity based on Ricoeur’s research of narrative. Keywords: exemplary language, narrative, Confucianism, Zhuangzi, narrative time, narrative meaning Introduction Exemplary language can, on the one hand, assist a listener to understand what a speaker intends to express, and, on the other hand, provoke a kind of practical force to the listener. Exemplary language is everywhere in our daily life, such as the bedtime stories told by a mother to her child, literary works, and judicial precedents. Many Western philosophers have expounded on this type of language. In other words, exemplary language has become a topic for philosophical discussions. Narrative is a kind of exemplary language. The constituents of narrative: time and meaning, can be those according to which we discuss the subjectivity of the exemplary language. In Chinese classics, there are many expressions using exemplary language. Do they also have the aforementioned effects? Has there been any philosophical reflection on these exemplary languages? When Wang Wen-Sheng, Prof. Dr. of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, National Chengchi University, Taipei City, Taiwan. 588 BASED ON RICOEUR’S RESEARCH OF NARRATIVE Zhuangzi pointed out “words that are metaphorical (Yu yan, 寓言)”, “words from valued writers/figures (Chong yan, 重言)”, and “words like the water that daily issues from the cup (Zhi yan, 卮言)”, has he made a philosophical reflection on these exemplary languages? Besides, in the Analects and the Mencius, there is no lack of exemplary language. Do they have any philosophical discourse on it? How about other Chinese classics? The differences between the Chinese and the Western exemplary language initiate our discussion about the relation between language and culture. Is language a crucial element that constitutes a culture? Or vice versa? Language itself consists of pre-linguistic elements, such as the level of human existence (Dasein) or that of Being, which is embodied in language. In this regard, Heidegger’s critique of Cassirer could be true: In relation to Being, language is not terminus ad quem, but terminus a quo. Thus, we must investigate the pre-linguistic level, so that we can discuss the subjectivity of the exemplary languages in different cultures. This article is going to trace the origins of different subjectivity by analyzing distinct ways of creating characters/words in Chinese and the Western culture. A Chinese character is with one syllable and one meaning, and normally every word in a Western language is with multiple syllables and one meaning. There have been many discussions about this difference. The Western words with multiple syllables are composed in accordance with linear time, which determine the logic structure. Language has long served as a tool for the Western people to justify a claim or sentence (logon didonai) since the Ancient Greek. The logic structure needed when doing so may have something to do with the multi-syllable words used in Western languages. However, in the Western culture, there are exemplary language and poetic language as well, which can also express a reasonable meaning just as what logon didonai does. This type of language is not a mainstream way of expression in the West, but is very common in Chinese classics. This phenomenon is probably due to the type of Chinese characters, which have been created without the concept of linear time and logic structure. Nevertheless, is exemplary language carried by another form of time? Ricoeur intends to analyze the time in a narrative, which is a type of exemplary language. But it is to be noticed that the time in a narrative might differ because of varied types of characters/words and subjectivity. As for the other element constituting a narrative, “meaning”, it can also be discussed based on the purposes of using narrative and the theoretical backgrounds in different cultures. This article aims to explore Chinese narrative subjectivity based on Ricoeur’s research of narrative. Western Exemplary Language It is called doxa (opinion) in Ancient Greek philosophy whether one uses examples to strengthen the expression of an idea or relies completely on pure examples to communicate. Doxa was considered to be an opinion that could not become real knowledge. Such a criticism was made by Socrates when he pointed out that the Sophists only gave some examples instead of providing definitions when describing things. The doxa that is not qualified to be knowledge reveals the deficiency of exemplary language. However, if one offers some examples based on the knowledge that has been constructed, it can be helpful for the communication and practical usage of the knowledge. Rhetoric by Aristotle raised the concepts of paradéigma (a pattern, example, or sample) and enthúmema (rhetorical syllogism), which are different from the induction and syllogism based on logic. Rhetoric starts from a doxa, with no need to put forward the premise first. As a result, paradéigma takes advantage of a real case to propose an idea, which will always be demonstrated by the real case or doxa. However, this does not mean that BASED ON RICOEUR’S RESEARCH OF NARRATIVE 589 Rhetoric only provides opinions, or doxa. In fact, the theoretical discourse has been intuitively accepted through the words being said. The persuasiveness of Rhetoric is the perfect example proving that the exemplary language can help with communication and is definitely effective. Later, in Kritik der reinen Vernunf, Kant (1976) stated that the ability of judging is crucial for applying traditional logic to the object of experience. In this case, an example is needed as a practice to develop this ability. That is why Kant has said “examples are thus the go-cart of the judgment” (Kant, 1976, pp. 134-136). He also stated in Kritik der Urteilskraft that an empirical concept that is supposed to be real is based on intuition towards an example (Kant, 1974). A rational concept, which can be thought but not aesthetically intuited, can be real only with an allegorical symbol. The example provided by Kant is that when a monarchy is governed according to the laws established by its people; it resembles a mentalized body. By contrast, when a monarchy is governed by the absolute will of an individual, it resembles a mill. The symbols used by Kant (body and mill) serve as allegories of the “rule of law” and “autocracy” (Kant, 1974, pp. 255-257). Later, Arendt also cited Kant’s words: “examples are thus the go-cart of judgment”. Though the words Arendt used was not focusing on applying traditional logic to objects of experience. Instead, she intended to emphasize that aesthetic judgment as well as the moral and political judgments derived from it should be based on personal experiences and examples (Arendt, 2003). Such examples should be the people or things that are widely recognized and valued in the history to have qualities, such as beauty, goodness, and justice. To illustrate the concept, Arendt has said that an exemplary grand bridge enabled herself to recognize and appreciate a grand bridge in front of her. Other examples included Achilles as the example of brevity, Jesus as the example of goodness, and King Solomon as the example of a wise man (Arendt, 2003; Arendt, 2012). Arendt took the concept of allegory proposed by Kant as a kind of “metaphor”, which is different from an example. When we try to understand a phenomenal world, what we need is to just think based on common sense and use examples to demonstrate the concept. When an abstract concept is elaborated on with a specific example, it becomes easier to understand. However, in another situation when reason should go beyond the phenomenal world to lead us to the realm of speculation, metaphor can help us understand rational ideas, which do not correspond with intuition.